How Do Evolutionists Respond to What You Say?

They generally ignore it. A few will criticize the evidence in forums where I cannot respond. When I was traveling and speaking over a 20-year period (1980-1999), every host knew that I would stay an extra day if they wanted to set up a debate with an evolutionist or team of evolutionists, one of whom held a doctorate in either the applied or basic sciences. The hosts had to locate the evolutionist(s) and a neutral community leader who would act as the debate moderator. About once a year a qualified evolutionist would agree to an oral, strictly scientific debate. These debates were always lively, but cordial and professionally conducted. Unfortunately, little can be covered in a 2 1/2-hour debate, and the substance of the debate cannot be widely distributed and studied as it could if it were in writing.

The best way, I believe, to clarify the creation-evolution controversy is to have a thorough, written, publishable, strictly scientific debate. Both sides would lay out their case, much as I have in The Scientific Case for Creation on pages 7–107. Then, each side would respond, point-by-point, to the case for the other side. Both sides would have the right to publish the finished exchange. Surprisingly, this has never been done even though the topic is so controversial. It is especially surprising in a discipline—science—that prides itself on openness and a free exchange of ideas.

I have sought such an exchange since 1980, but have not had a serious, qualified taker. Many leading evolutionists know of the offer. When I spoke at universities and colleges, I always offered students a $200 finder’s fee if they could find an evolutionist professor who would complete such a debate. I am repeating that offer here to the first student who can find such a science professor.

Several excuses are given by evolutionists.

1. “I don’t have time.”

Response: Many do not have time, and of course, they need not participate. However, others have the time to write books attacking and misrepresenting creationist positions. Many are teaching what I feel are outdated evolutionary ideas and refuse to place themselves in a forum where they must defend what they are teaching. If you are going to teach something, you should be willing to defend it, especially if taxpayers are paying your salary.

2. “Creation is a religious idea. It is not science.”

Response: Creation certainly has religious implications, but much scientific evidence bears on the subject. Only the scientific aspects would be permitted in this written debate. An editor would remove any religious, or antireligious, comments from the exchange. If my comments were only religious, the editor would strike them from the debate. I would have nothing left to present, so the evolutionist would win by default. (Incidentally, evolution also has religious implications.)

3. “I don’t want to give creationists a forum.”

Response: Of the thousands of scientific controversies, the creation-evolution controversy may be the one in which scientists most often refuse to exchange and discuss the evidence. That is an unscientific, closed-minded position.

4. “I don’t know enough about evolution” [Carl Sagan’s answer], or “I am qualified in only one aspect of evolution.”

Response: A team of evolutionists could participate in the debate.

5. “Any debate should be in refereed science journals.”

Response: No journal would allocate the number of pages needed for such a debate. Besides, those journals are controlled by evolutionists, so why would they provide a platform to have their beliefs criticized? Nor do they publish any research questioning evolution and supporting creation. Publishers of these journals would be severely criticized by their subscribers and advertisers if they did. (The few evolutionists who participate in oral debates often admit how much they are criticized by other evolutionists for participating in a debate.) In a well-publicized case, one journal, Scientific American, withdrew a contract to hire a highly qualified assistant editor when the journal’s executives learned he was a creationist.

If anyone wishes to explore the written-debate idea further, see pages 549–551. But if you ask a qualified evolutionist to participate, watch for excuses.

How do evolutionists respond to the scientific case for creation? Most try to ignore it. As you can see from the above excuses, even qualified evolutionists usually avoid a direct exchange dealing with the scientific evidence.